front-foot rule in Maryland

1969Because of this double aspect, the common benefit may be measured by the standard of the number of feet fronting upon the improvement, and so the weight of authority and of reason supports the rule as stated by this Court in Bassett v. Ocean City, 118 Md. 114 , where it was said: ‘According to the rule established by these recent decisions, the Legislature may apportion the cost of improvement of a street or avenue among the owners of the abutting property according to the front foot rule, and this rule is in accord with the decisions *638 in this state prior to the case of Ulman v. Baltimore,

1927Indeed the Act of 1912 did more, for it expressly authorized the municipality to provide by ordinance for assessment by the front foot rule for costs of grading, paving, and curbing, which is not far different from the act which this Court had under consideration in Bassett v. Ocean City, 118 Md. 114 .

1996For example, "the front-foot rule cannot be so mechanically applied as to require the adjacent property owners automatically to pay the total costs of construction without any relation to the special benefit actually conferred upon the property.” Montgomery County v. Schultze, 302 Md. 481, 492 , 489 A.2d 16 (1985). 30 .

1996For example, "the front-foot rule cannot be so mechanically applied as to require the adjacent property owners automatically to pay the total costs of construction without any relation to the special benefit actually conferred upon the property.” Montgomery County v. Schultze, 302 Md. 481, 492 , 489 A.2d 16 (1985). 30 .

1985Seely v. Pittsburgh 82 Pa. 360 [ (1876) ].

1940Seely v. Pittsburgh, 82 Pa. 360 .

1927See also Balti *167 more v. Johns Hopkins Hospital, 56 Md. 1 ; Hyattsville v. Smith, 105 Md. 318 .

1915In Hyattsville v. Smith, supra, we sustained an assessment made according to the front foot rule under a section of the charter of Hyattsville very similar to- the one under which this improvement was made, as we also did in Bassett v. Ocean City, supra, and Baltimore v. Johns Hopkins Hospital, 56 Md. 1 .

1996A similar response was made under still more apposite circumstances in Beauchamp v. Somerset County, 243 Md. 98, 103 , 220 A.2d 135 (1966), to an argument that “the present assessment will force the conversion of its agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, which result, it asserts, is contrary to the legislative intent” regarding agricultural uses.

1996A similar response was made under still more apposite circumstances in Beauchamp v. Somerset County, 243 Md. 98, 103 , 220 A.2d 135 (1966), to an argument that “the present assessment will force the conversion of its agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, which result, it asserts, is contrary to the legislative intent” regarding agricultural uses.

1996The sole object of the inquiry, from either point of view, is to determine the comparative market values of the property before and after the appropriation of a part for the intended public use, and in ascertaining those values, with reference to either period, all the available uses of the land may properly be considered. *730 An “objection to the application of the front foot rule of assessment on the ground that its land is rural” was found to be “really a variation of the objection to considering the use of its land for any purpose other than that to which it is presently” (at 450, 115 A.2

1985See French v. Barber Asphalt Co., supra; Tonawanda v. Lyon, 181 U.S. 389 , 21 S.Ct. 609 , 45 L.Ed. 908 (1901).

1985See French v. Barber Asphalt Co., supra; Tonawanda v. Lyon, 181 U.S. 389 , 21 S.Ct. 609 , 45 L.Ed. 908 (1901).

1969Because of this double aspect, the common benefit may be measured by the standard of the number of feet fronting upon the improvement, and so the weight of authority and of reason supports the rule as stated by this Court in Bassett v. Ocean City, 118 Md. 114 , where it was said: ‘According to the rule established by these recent decisions, the Legislature may apportion the cost of improvement of a street or avenue among the owners of the abutting property according to the front foot rule, and this rule is in accord with the decisions *638 in this state prior to the case of Ulman v. Baltimore,

1969Because of this double aspect, the common benefit may be measured by the standard of the number of feet fronting upon the improvement, and so the weight of authority and of reason supports the rule as stated by this Court in Bassett v. Ocean City, 118 Md. 114 , where it was said: ‘According to the rule established by these recent decisions, the Legislature may apportion the cost of improvement of a street or avenue among the owners of the abutting property according to the front foot rule, and this rule is in accord with the decisions *638 in this state prior to the case of Ulman v. Baltimore,

1955Since the land in question is now suburban in character, and not rural, the area is one in which the front foot rule of measuring benefits can fairly be applied, and the holding in the case Harlan v. Town of Bel Air, 178 Md. 260 , 13 A. 2d 370 , is accordingly not applicable.

1955Since the land in question is now suburban in character, and not rural, the area is one in which the front foot rule of measuring benefits can fairly be applied, and the holding in the case Harlan v. Town of Bel Air, 178 Md. 260 , 13 A. 2d 370 , is accordingly not applicable.

1912Buit if, in the opinion of the Legislature, it is the proper rule to apply to any particular 'case, the Courts must enforce it.” In the case of Baltimore City v. Stewart, 92 Md. 535 , this Court said that the front foot rule of apportionment of the cost of improvements had been recognized and approved by this Court in a number of eases.

1884The ordinances upheld in Scharf’s Case, 56 Md., 50 , and in the Johns Hopkins Hospital Case, 56 Md., 1 , are so nearly identical with the ordinance now attacked, it would seem that those cases ought to be conclusive against all the objections alleged as invalidating the ordinance.